Challenge against Tender Cum-Auction Sale Notice under SARFAESI Act: Madras HC dismisses Writ petition on availability of Remedy under Statute [Read Order]
The apex court has held that the High Court was not justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when there is the alternative remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act
![Challenge against Tender Cum-Auction Sale Notice under SARFAESI Act: Madras HC dismisses Writ petition on availability of Remedy under Statute [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/07/06/2059780-challenge-against-tender-cum-auction-sale-notice-tender-cum-auction-sale-notice-tender-cum-auction-sale-notice-under-sarfaesi-act-taxscan.webp "Challenge against Tender Cum-Auction Sale Notice under SARFAESI Act: Madras HC dismisses Writ petition on availability of Remedy under Statute [Read Order]")
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the tender cum-auction sale notice under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 on availability of remedy under the statute. Kanthinathan Palani Kandasamy, the petitioner, instituted the writ petition challenging the Tender-Cum-Auction Sale...
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the tender cum-auction sale notice under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 on availability of remedy under the statute.
Kanthinathan Palani Kandasamy, the petitioner, instituted the writ petition challenging the Tender-Cum-Auction Sale Notice issued by the 3rd respondent under SARFAESI Act. The said proceedings are susceptible to appeal under SARFAESI Act. Thus, this Writ Petition is not maintainable, in view of the legal principles settled by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and others reported in (2024), where the Court has time and again, reminded the High Courts that they should not entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here
The Apex court held that “In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.”
A division bench of Justice S.M.Subramaniam and Dr.Justice A.D.Maria Clete viewed that in various case, the apex court has held that the High Court was not justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when the borrowers had already availed the alternative remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
The court dismissed the writ petition.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
